Sermon Video: The Whole Will of God - Acts 20:25-31

Continuing his farewell address to the church elders from Ephesus, Paul declares to them that he is "innocent of the blood of all men" because he knows that he has declared the "whole will of God" throughout his journeys.  What is this "whole will of God"?  Paul made that clear back in vs. 21 when he affirmed that his message had always been to both Jews and Greeks that they must "turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus."  In other words, Paul declared the Gospel, the whole Gospel, no more and no less.  All men have sinned, none can please a holy and righteous God on their own, and therefore all must repent and trust in the righteousness of Jesus.
Beginning with the Early Church, and continuing to this day, there have been attempts to distort this straightforward declaration of the Gospel by adding to it or subtracting from it.  The most common additions have been attempts to add an element of works to faith (thereby diminishing the sufficiency of the work of Christ).  The most common attempted subtractions have been denials of the full human/divine nature of Jesus (thereby diminishing the person of Jesus).
As the Church, we are tasked with protecting against attack from within or without, whatever they might be, and maintaining the true and full Gospel, for we know that it alone is the power of God unto salvation.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Is mankind wicked? Is there any doubt? Jeremiah 17:9

The prophet Jeremiah, a man called of God to warn a people gone astray who did not listen to him, wrote this chilling thought, "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure.  Who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)  While it would be easy to speak of the wicked/fallen nature of humanity based upon historical events like the many genocides exemplified by the Holocaust, reading my local paper this past week provided, unfortunately, ample evidence.  In just one week, our local paper (which is excellent by the way) reported on two ongoing cases involving the trials of local teachers accused of a sexual relationship with a student, of two men accused of raping children, one of whom was also his own child, and to top it off, a two year old child found naked in the middle of a busy road while his parent was passed out drunk on the couch with a second one year old child being neglected in the crib.  Are you kidding me?  This isn't the big city, our county only has 53,000 people living in it, and yet these five incidents represent evil that was both reported and prosecuted, in other words, there is more than this going on, these are just the people who were caught.
The old saying, "ignorance is bliss" isn't true.  Would I rather not know about child rape and endangerment going on in my community, of course, but only if it wasn't happening.  How can we combat evil if we don't recognize it?  Still trying to cling to the notion that people are essentially "good" and in no need of help from God?  Good luck with that, me, I'll continue to trust in the saving power of Jesus Christ to rescue us from our woeful state transforming those who trust in him through the power of the Holy Spirit, and I'll continue to share that message of hope to a world sorely in need of it.

The fool's bargain of trading the Gospel for Power

The pursuit of power is a fundamental factor in the history of humanity.  Individuals have made incredible sacrifices and committed horrific atrocities in the pursuit of it, as often as not, without ever attaining what they sought.  The pursuit of power destroyed Julius Caesar, it kept Napoleon from enjoying his victories and sent him to his doom in wintry Russia, and it did the same thing to Hitler just over a century later.  Power is never enough, those who grasp it always want more.  As Princess Leia told Governor Tarkin in Star Wars, "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."  Or in the more philosophical realm if you prefer, Lord Acton warned, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

It was in 2014 that Russell Moore, the president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission with the Southern Baptist Convention, wrote a book entitled, Onward: Engaging the Culture Without Losing the Gospel.  In that book Dr. Moore warned the Church in America, in particular, of the dangers of trading devotion to the Gospel for Earthly power.

“Some sectors of religious activism are willing to receive, as Christians, heretics and demagogues, so long as they are with us politically....When that happens, we are demonstrating what we believe to be truly important, and we are embracing then a different gospel from the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

I have written about this danger often enough in the past, but seeing Dr. Moore's quote for the first time felt like reason enough to revisit it once more.

What do we gain, as a Church, if we gain earthly power, if to do so we have to align ourselves with individuals or institutions which are antithetical to the Gospel?  Do we "win" if we abandon the teachings of Christ in order to advance a political agenda?  It is not as if Jesus didn't himself address this topic, "What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?" (Mark 8:36)

The question is simple: Which is more important to you, a victory in the political realm, or a victory for the Gospel?

If human history is any indication, and it is, you're not likely to have both.

As Joshua said to the people of Israel at the end of his time leading them, "choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve...As for me and my household, we will serve the LORD." (Joshua 24:14-15).  You can only serve one master, if it isn't Christ, you've already lost.

Sermon Video: Apollos and the Whole Gospel - Acts 18:18-28

What happens when the Gospel message is missing a key component, or has something added to it?  The danger in such a case is that the Gospel will be devoid of the power that it has to save the Lost.  For example: If someone knew who Jesus was, but not what he had done for us, how could that partial information lead such a person to repentance and faith?  Likewise, if a person knew who Jesus was, and what he had done for us, but was also told that our response is to imitate Jesus and earn our salvation (as opposed to trusting in his work on our behalf), how could such a Gospel with that spurious addition lead such a person to repentance and faith?
In the book of Acts, Luke recounts the return of Paul at the end of his 2nd missionary journey, and his subsequent start to his 3rd missionary journey, but in between those trips he also recounts the arrival of Apollos, an Alexandrian Jew, in Ephesus.  Apollos knew a good deal about Jesus, and his information was accurate, but he didn't know the whole story.  Apollos had believed the message of John the Baptist, the call to repentance and the identification of Jesus as the Messiah, but Apollos didn't know the end of the story, for he had not yet heard of the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Even with the right intentions, and a zeal for the Lord, the truths that Apollos was sharing fell short of what was needed to save, it could point people toward Jesus, but not help them come to him.  Thankfully, the will of God was not idle, and Paul's friends Priscilla and Aquila enlightened Apollos by sharing with him the rest of the Good News about Jesus.
A Gospel missing any of its key elements: who Jesus is (both God and man), what he has done (his vicarious death and resurrection), or what we must do in response (repent in faith), is a defective Gospel, just as a Gospel with additional requirements tacked on (the normal one being human effort instead of faith).  We, as the Church, must always protect the integrity of the Gospel message, insisting upon it in our preaching and teaching, refuting those who preach a different Gospel, and trusting as Scripture tells us that the power to save comes from God, not us.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

What you win them with is what you win them to.

If you do a Google search on that quote, "What you win them with is what you win them to", you'll likely find a lot of blogs from pastors and other church leaders talking about what it means in relation to evangelism and outreach by the Church.  The quote is a variation of something A.W. Tozer said, "You win them to what you win them with", although figuring out who first turned it around isn't easy.  I first heard the new version of the quote listening to James White, Christian author and apologist.

Given the rancor and divisiveness of the 2016 election in the United States, it seems evident that the principle underlying the quote applies to elected officials as well.  If a politician runs an honest campaign, you can expect him/her to govern honestly, if a politician runs a sleazy and dirty campaign, you can expect him/her to govern in a sleazy and dirty manner.  That ought to be obvious enough to the average voter, but it seems that many voters, on both sides, have been operating under the illusion that the person/party in which they place their trust will govern differently than they ran for office, as if the character that is displayed (or lack thereof) in the attempt to gain power is somehow divorced from the character (or lack thereof) that will be displayed in the exercise of power.

The same principle holds true in the business world.  Any company which employs sneaky or underhanded tactics to get customers through the door cannot be expected to treat those same customers with honesty and integrity once they have their money.

I'm also reminded of the various commercials on TV from law firms hoping to recruit people to sue over this issue or that, can one expect a lawyer who would resort to such a blatant appeal to greed to gain a client to subsequently treat that client with anything other than that same greed?  Or consider the cash advance and structured settlement commercials, they too make their appeal based on short-term desires pumped up by greed in order to gain customers, would you expect your interaction with such a business to be based on any other principle than their greed?

Regarding the Church, we have a greater reason than what is practical to heed the warning of using tactics which are less than fully upfront and honest.  It is of course immoral for the people of God to try to increase our membership/attendance through duplicitous or sneaky means.  In addition to our moral imperative to avoid such things, they just don't work.  If you "win" a person for the Gospel with anything less than (or greater than) the Gospel's simple message of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, you haven't "won" that person at all.  The Gospel's power is not based in our tactics or effort, but in its Truth.  If the Church offers the Truth, in love, and fails, so be it.  If we offer a diet version of the Truth, even our successes will be failures.

Should the Church be inviting and friendly, a place where those from the outside feel welcome?  Of course it should, for we have been commanded to share the Gospel with the Lost, but if in our efforts to be inviting and friendly we dilute the Gospel, minimize the focus on worship, or simply offer up a feel-good experience devoid of the Gospel's emphasis on repentance, we will have "won" the lost to our fellowship, but they'll still be lost.  Only the true Gospel, the Gospel of the Apostles as contained in the Scriptures, has the power to save, offering the world anything less is a fool's bargain.

Bernie Sanders and the Intolerance of the Gospel

In a recent exchange with a nominee for the position of deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders took great umbrage with an online post made by the nominee, Russell Vought, which contained this statement:

Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned. In John 8:19, “Jesus answered, ‘You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” In Luke 10:16, Jesus says, “The one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” And in John 3:18, Jesus says, “Whoever believes in [the Son] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

I have no desire to wade into a political debate, that should be obvious to anyone who has read this blog before, nor do I know whether or not Russell Vought would make a good deputy director of OMB, the larger question here is whether or not a statement like the one that Vought made, is in fact "indefensible" and "hateful" as Senator Sanders contends.  The statement made by Vought was in the context of a controversy at his alma mater, Wheaton College, but it touches upon a much larger and far more ancient context.
The Church has proclaimed for 2,000 years that Jesus Christ is, as he himself stated in the Gospel of John, "the way, the truth, and the life".  Jesus added clarity to his claim by also saying, "No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)  Along with the verses previously by Russel Vought in his quote, John 8:19, Luke 10:16, John 3:18, could also be listed Acts 4:12, Romans 3:23-24, Ephesians 2:1-10, the list could go on and on.  The New Testament is boldly, unequivocally, and without reservation, absolutely exclusive in its claim that all of mankind already stands condemned by God, as our holy and righteous judge, and that the ONLY possible solution to our desperate state is to believe in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord.  This was the belief of every writer of the New Testament, it was the belief of the early Church Fathers, it was the belief of the great theologians, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin, and the belief of the Church in its entirety, with very few exceptions, until the post-modern era when universalist viewpoints began to be adopted by some Christian, and pseudo-Christian groups.  The point is simply this: It cannot be denied that the Gospel makes exclusive claims, claims that by necessity are a rejection of the claims of others, including other religions such as Judaism or Islam, but also those of the non-religious.  These claims are not secret, they're not new, and they're fundamental to the Christian faith.
The Gospel was controversial when it was first introduced, it remains controversial to this day.  The rebellious heart of man hates to hear that repentance is needed, that his/her own efforts are doomed to failure, and that submission to the will of God is necessary.  A response of anger, an attempt to silence those proclaiming the Gospel, is also not new.
To make the Gospel palatable to non-believers is to rob it of its power, to make it acceptable to agnostics and atheists is to slap Jesus in the face.  The Church cannot do this, it must not do this, and those in the "Church" who already have done so, have chosen to leave the historic and Biblical Church.  The Gospel is intolerant, it has to be, for the love of God compels us to share the hope of salvation with a world lost and doomed to destruction.

One final thought: If you think the Gospel if "hateful" and "bigoted", don't read what the Qur'an says about non-believers.  The Gospel in no-way teaches the followers of Jesus to hate unbelievers, to persecute them, and certainly not to kill them, any such actions on the part of "Christians" in the past or present are a rejection of the teaching of the Bible.  Islam has a different problem, the Qur'an both advocates peaceful co-existence AND the destruction of unbelievers (thus making task of moderate Muslims that much more difficult against the fanatics who resort to terrorism).

Becoming a Christian vs. Being a Christian

Ignorance and confusion are not helpful ingredients when talking about religion.  With that in mind, there seems to be a significant amount of both regarding the differences between what it takes to become a Christian, and what it subsequently takes to be a Christian.  Hopefully, this comparison will help.

Anyone, anytime, anywhere can become a Christian if he/she takes one fateful step: "if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.  For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." (Romans 10:9-10)  Race, nationality, age, gender, none of them make any difference.  What a person has done in the past, doesn't make him/her more or less capable of being saved if that person comes to God in faith.  The most innocent child among us (though still a sinner as are we all) can be saved, as can the most hardened and vile criminal, for all alike need to be forgiven, and the blood of Jesus Christ is capable of cleansing anyone.

Work is not necessary to become a Christian, in fact, trying to work to earn salvation is a sure-fire way to fail to find it.  Salvation is an act of God's grace, given to mankind through faith in Jesus.  No specific words must be spoken, no setting or place is necessary, genuine faith will be sufficient.  When one of the thieves being crucified alongside Jesus showed that he believed in him by saying, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."  Jesus responded to this man, a criminal hours away from death, by saying, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."  The thief had no chance to earn God's favor, he had no chance to make up for his past, he simply called out to God for mercy, through Jesus, and he found it.

To be a Christian requires several things, again, these things do not help anyone become a Christian, they merely confirm what God has already done for that person through grace.  If a person lacks these character traits/qualities, the Scriptures tell us that such a person may not have yet become a Christian, which would take us back to square one, the need for an act of faith.  There are people who believe themselves to be Christians erroneously (and thus extremely dangerously) but who are in actuality not Christians at all, having evidently never believed in Jesus Christ.

The Bible calls the character traits/qualities of a Christian his/her "fruit".  Jesus was quite clear in the Gospels that someone claiming to be a Christian without any evidence of "fruit" cannot be one.  "I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.  He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful." (John 15:1-2).  Jesus' brother James reiterated this point when he wrote, "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?  Can such a faith save him?...faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead." (James 2:14,17)

The "fruit" required of each and ever person who would be a Christian is explained in a variety of ways.  Paul utilized a list, calling it the "fruit of the Spirit": "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control." (Galatians 5:22)  Not that any Christian has each and every one of these perfectly, but this is the character that demonstrates the fruit that Jesus warned us we must have once we have become Christians.  We haven't mastered this list, but we sure better be working on it.

The Apostle John answered the question, "Who is a Christian?" in his first epistle by emphasizing three primary qualities and repeating them each over and over.  John explained that all Christians must: (1) believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, (2) obey the commandments of God found in Scripture, and (3) show love for fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.  John explained that anyone who could demonstrate these three should have no fear concerning their relationship with God for they are impossible to achieve for anyone who is not empowered by the Holy Spirit as someone who has already become a Christian.  {This should be obvious, nobody can be a Christian who did not previously become a Christian.  Faith must come first}  The converse is also true: anyone who lacks one of these three should be rightly concerned that he/she must be truly be a Christian.

If you're interested in learning much more about what John has to say about the question, "Who is a Christian?"  I wrote a 155 page book on the subject which you are more than welcome to read, it is entitled Christianity's Big Tent: The Ecumenism of I John and can be found via the link.

Let me summarize the distinction between becoming and being a Christian:

Become: anyone, by grace, through faith, in Jesus.

Be: Obey the Scriptures, believe in Jesus, love fellow Christians (i.e. "bear fruit")

To be a Christian is no easy task, Jesus likened it to each of us taking up a cross of our own and following him.  In light of the difficulty of the road ahead, anyone who desires to be a Christian ought to be doing so as part of the fellowship of a local church where the Word of God is respected and followed and people build each other up through service and prayer.  It is beyond the ability of virtually all of us to be a Christian who bears much fruit on our own.  We need to be a part of a church.  We need to be corrected when we err, we need to be supported when we stumble, we need the opportunity to grow by serving others, and lastly, but very importantly, we need to worship God with the people of God.

You don't need to be perfect to become a Christian, which is a relief since nobody is anything close to perfect.  You don't need to be perfect to be a Christian either, which is a relief since none of us are perfect either, but you do need to be making progress.  A "Christian" who bears no fruit, is no Christian at all, that's not my idea, but a very serious warning from Jesus himself.  

Sermon Video: The Rise of the Son - Mark 16:1-8

On the first Easter morning, it was not the apostles to whom the message of the resurrection of Jesus first came, for they were in hiding, rather it was to the faithful women who had followed Jesus for years, and who stood near the cross as he died.  To these women God entrusted the most important message in the history of the world, that Jesus Christ had risen from the grave.  It is this same message of hope and joy because Jesus has conquered sin and death that the people of God today, the Church, are tasked with sharing with the world.

Are good people in Heaven?

Short answer: No

Heaven doesn't contain "good" people, it contains forgiven people.

God is holy, God is perfect, and only those who likewise are holy and perfect can enter into his presence.

Humanity is not holy, humanity is not perfect, all of us are flawed, all are sinners.

If God had not intervened with the Incarnation, if the Son of God had not died for our sins and if he had not been raised to life for our justification, the gulf that exists between God, who is holy, and humanity, which is not, would have remained separating us from God forever.

Heaven isn't for "good" people; good isn't good enough, only perfection will work, and since the only way for a human being to be perfect is for God to forgive us, and give us his righteousness (through Christ), the only people who will join God in heaven are those who by faith have been forgiven.

The Intolerance of the Gospel

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is intolerant, as a matter of fact, the whole Bible is intolerant, on purpose.  When God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses on Mt. Sinai, the first commandment was straightforward in its exclusive claim, "You shall have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3).  In a similar vein, the prophet Isaiah wrote, "O LORD Almighty, God of Israel, enthroned between the cherubim, you alone are God over all the kingdoms of the earth." (Isaiah 37:16)  The fundamental understanding of who God is, clearly stated throughout the Hebrew scriptures, is that there is only one God, that no other gods exist.
The New Testament takes up this refrain and amplifies it even further with the exclusive "I Am" statements of Jesus, "I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)  There is absolutely no way to honor the words of Jesus other than admitting that this is an exclusive claim, one that is by its very nature, intolerant of other attempts to bridge the gap between the human and the divine.  Jesus exclusively claimed that he was the path to God, the only true God, and that all other paths must fail.  This is intolerant, it does not embrace the notion that people can believe whatever they want, for in that same sentence Jesus also declared himself to be "the truth".
Racism, hatred, cruelty, and unkindness have nothing to do with the Gospel, the people of God must always oppose them, vigorously, the exclusivity of the Gospel and such immoral behaviors have nothing in common.  The Gospel is indeed intolerant of false hope and false promises, it must be, for there is only one truth, to pretend otherwise would only harm those who do not yet believe.

Pastors may be legally able to engage in partisan politics? No thanks.

The President of the United States recently spoke in favor of repealing the 1954 Johnson Amendment which prohibits endorsements of political candidates by those working for non-profits (including churches) with the possibility of the organization's tax exempt status potentially being revoked for violations.  This law is rarely enforced, during the past election cycle a significant number of prominent religious figures made endorsements and even actively campaigned for a political candidate, in violation of the law, without apparent consequence.  It is apparent that these men and women have some sort of justification in mind for their violation of the teaching of Romans 13, it will of course be God who judges the heart on this matter.
It isn't the law which prevents me from making political endorsements, or even speaking publicly on politics in general (aside from encouraging democratic principles and good citizenship), but a deeply held belief that any marriage between the Church and a political party is destined to be an uneven and abusive relationship.  Politics offers a Faustian bargain to pastors, promising them access to power in exchange for their reputation, in the end, power will prove an illusion, betrayal will occur, and one's reputation will never be the same.
I already have a boss, the God of the heavens and the earth, the judge of the living and the dead, I don't need another, I won't yoke myself willingly to a political boss.  I already have a mission, to spread the Gospel and make disciples, I don't need another, especially one that has the potential to weaken or destroy my effectiveness to do the first.  I am a firm believer in Free Speech, without it, Freedom of Religion could not exist.  That I have the freedom to say or do something does not mean that it is wise, prudent, or morally upright to do so.  I choose to self-limit my political speech, that I might better serve the kingdom of God, that I might better be the salt and light that our world so desperately needs.
If the Johnson Amendment is repealed, it won't change my actions at all, but it will tempt others of my brothers and sisters serving the Church to exchange the unchanging Truth of the Gospel for the changeable power plays of politics.  Not all speech is free, some of it comes as a cost, this cost is too high.

The Gospel or the Gun: Which do you trust?

In 1945, General George Patton wanted to invade the Soviet Union and wipe out the Communists with the help of the remnant of the shattered Nazi army.  In 1951, General Douglas MacArthur wanted to nuke China during the Korean War, forcing President Harry Truman to fire him.  There are always those who believe that the answer to a threat is the barrel of a gun.  It is indeed true that the strong must protect the weak, and a military solution may be the only moral option, but it is also true that militancy and nationalism can run amok with potentially peaceful solutions (or at least less violent ones) lost in the hysteria of fear and fear-mongering.

It is becoming increasingly clear that a number of American and European Christians, including some famous people in leadership positions, view a global war with Islam as inevitable, and perhaps even preferable.  One of the reasons for this militant stance is often a Pre-Tribulation Eschatology that sees a WWIII style conflict as a precursor to the Rapture, and something that cannot or should not be avoided, as it would usher in the return of Christ.  I've written before about the dangers of letting a particular view of Eschatology color your morality and attitude, so that's nothing new, but the issue of confronting Islam has another element that is also troubling.  It would appear that many of those in the pro-war camp are leaning that way because they envision Islam spreading globally and taking over the West through immigration and higher birth rates.  While such an argument might hold water with a statistician, how is it that those who believe in the power of faith, and the triumph of the Gospel, are terrified of the spread of Islam?  If this is simply a battle of ideas, like the Communism vs. Capitalism debate of the Cold War, then it truly would be a confrontation with an unknown outcome, but this is not what Christians believe, at least they shouldn't.  Christianity is based upon historical fact, and those who follow Jesus Christ believe in the triumph of the Gospel over the forces of darkness, whatever they may be.  In Philippians 2:5-11, the Apostle Paul speaks of the ultimate triumph of Jesus Christ, and foretells the day when "every knee should bow...and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father."  Do God's people really believe these words, or do they put more faith in the power of the gun?  How could a professing Christian's priorities be so eschew that he/she would prefer a war, and with it the tens if not hundreds of millions of civilian casualties that would result, to letting the Gospel contend, as it has since the founding of the Church 2,000 years ago, with whatever philosophies, ideologies, or religions which oppose it?

The triumph of the Gospel, foretold in Scripture, is found in the conversion of the Lost, the redeeming of those apart from God, not in the obliteration of those who disbelieve in the explosion of a bomb.  I believe in the power of the Gospel, it will triumph over Islam, and all other beliefs, no matter what they may be, in the end, I'm not looking to destroy those who oppose the will of God, it is my responsibility as a disciple of Jesus Christ to share the wonderful grace of Jesus with them, that they too might willingly and gladly bow their knee before the King of Kings.

Sermon Video: Faith Resting on God's Power - 1 Corinthians 2:1-5

In this self-reflective section, Paul explains his attitude and reasoning regarding his initial time in Corinth when he first preached the Gospel, first in the synagogue, and then among the Gentiles.  Paul reveals that he purposefully avoided trying to sound polished and slick in his presentation, not wanting to win people over with anything other than the Gospel message itself.  In addition, Paul admits to a level of trepidation at the weight of the responsibility God had given him, but ends the section with a reassuring thought: It was not upon anything that Paul did that the people built their faith, but on the power of God.  How does Paul know this?  Paul kept his focus upon the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the heart of the Gospel, thus ensuring that what the people believed in was the Word of God, and thus reliant upon the power of God, as it should be.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: We preach Christ crucified - 1 Corinthians 1:21-25

The field of Christian apologetics is concerned with spreading the Gospel message and defending the faith from critique and attack.  This is an important field, oft used by God, but as Paul makes clear in 1 Corinthians, it operates under an important caveat: We preach Christ crucified.  The message of the Gospel was offensive to some and difficult to accept for others in the 1st Century, and it remains offensive and difficult for the Lost to accept today as well.  Paul was willing to try different approaches to his preaching in order to make it possible for the audience to hear the message, but he was completely unwilling to adjust the message to fit the audience.  Why?  Because "Christ crucified" is the wisdom and power of God.  Should anyone attempt to change the message to make it more palatable, they will only exchange the power of the Gospel for popularity, a poor choice indeed.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: The Foolishness of the Cross - 1 Corinthians 1:18-20

The Message of the Cross, that is the Gospel message about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, has always been foolishness to those who don't believe it.  In the first century, it was the shame of dying upon a cross that Paul had to overcome, and while that connotation has been replaced by the much more positive symbolism of the cross following the triumph of Christianity within the Roman Empire, the message itself still remains hard to accept.  Why is that?  It isn't the message, per se, but what the message requires of us.  To accept the Gospel, we must first admit our own failure and allow God to save us from our sins.  The problem with this step is of course human pride.  It is an act of humility and submission to bow before Jesus Christ, and plenty of the Lost are unwilling to countenance that step.
The difficulty of the Gospel message raises an important question about the relationship between faith and reason.  Do we arrive at faith through reason or do we abandon reason in order to have faith?  While there have been famous Christian philosophers who embrace their God given reasoning ability in service to their faith, there have also been Christian theologians who reject the use of philosophy in connection with theology.  In modern American Christianity, those rejecting the role of reason in faith evidence an anti-intellectualism that in particular tends to despise science.  It is not, however, all wisdom that God thwarts, only that of the world that in opposition to God, his people ought to be using their God given reason to serve his kingdom.  It is true that we do not arrive at faith by reason alone, nor is it true that faith ought to be devoid of reason, when we understand our faith properly it has reason as a partner.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Why both right action AND right belief matter

In response to the action taken  by the United Church of Canada against the self-proclaimed Atheist minister Gretta Vosper, a blogger named Christian Chiakulas wrote that their decision to defrock her for her beliefs (technically, lack of any belief) is why mainline denominations are dying.  The full blog post explains his position, but in a nutshell it appears that he thinks that judging someone for his/her beliefs is wrong and that only our actions matter.  In the post Chiakulas quotes an author named Roger Wolsey as saying, “[Progressive Christianity] emphasizes orthopraxy instead of orthodoxy (right actions over right beliefs); embraces reason as well as paradox and mystery — instead of blind allegiance to rigid doctrines and dogmas…and does not claim that Christianity is the only valid or viable way to connect to God.”  While this may fit the definition of Progressive, it certainly doesn't fit any historically relevant definition of Christianity.  And that is the whole point, what we're dealing with here is an attempt to redefine Christianity by refusing to define any belief, or lack thereof, as being out of bounds.  In other words, progressives like Chiakulas and Wolsey want to remain a part of Christianity whether or not they believe in Christ, whether or not they believe in God, and whether or not they believe in the Gospel, belief evidently has nothing to do with it.
To accept the notion that right belief doesn't matter you have to surrender to two fundamental presuppositions both of which are extremely dangerous and both of which are anathema to what the Church has been and stood for during the past two thousand years.  The first premise is this: There is no such thing as Truth with a capital T.  All truth must be relative, the Bible must be a collection of stories, not a revelation from God.  If there really is an absolute Truth, it would certainly matter whether or not a person embraces or rejects it, so Truth has to go.  The second premise: That mankind is inherently good.  If right behavior is all that matters, mankind must be capable, on his own, of being good.  This however flies not only in the face of human history, but of the explicit teachings of the Bible.  We cannot possibly please God, on our own, simply by doing what is right, because our very nature is sinful and we cannot fellowship with a holy God until we are reborn in Christ.  
Lastly, in his blog post, Chiakulas claims a remarkably stunning thing, "Jesus welcomed everyone who was willing to follow “The Way.”  Everyone.  And there was no religious test to becoming an apostle, other than a willingness to forsake all for the Kingdom of God."  What Chiakulas is failing to understand is that the disciples whom Jesus called to follow him were already believers in the God of Abraham, in the LORD, they already believed.  That Jesus allowed them to follow him until they saw that he was the Son of God, instead of requiring it first, was certainly not an affirmation that such a affirmation must come from them eventually.  That this claim of Chiakulas can be refuted by Jesus' own words, easily, ought to prevent someone from claiming it about how he conducted himself, but here it is.  If Jesus cared so little about what his followers believed, how could he say to them, "I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14;6)  And how could John end his Gospel with, "these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31)  The list of Biblical quotes that utterly refute such an asinine assertion that Jesus didn't care what his disciples believed, could go on and on and on.  
What we belief absolutely matters, for as anyone remotely familiar with the writings of Paul knows, it is by grace we are saved, not by our works, when we call upon the name of the Lord.

Atheist Minister Gretta Vosper is being defrocked, why wouldn't she be?

A 23 person committee of the United Church of Canada voted 19-4 recently that Gretta Vosper, minister at the West Hill United Church in Scarborough, is "unsuitable to continue serving" as a minister in the United Church of Canada.  By her own proud admission, Vosper does not believe in God, nor Jesus Christ, nor the Holy Spirit. Vosper responded to the decision, according to the Toronto Star, by saying, “My sadness is for the many clergy and members and individuals currently studying for leadership in the UCC who are now also being told they need to keep quiet about their true beliefs or risk censure...The majority report said nothing about ethos and spoke exclusively to theological belief. A very sad day for the UCC.”
The United Church of Canada, "a historically inclusive and open-minded Protestant denomination" according to the article in the Star, has at least been willing to take a stand that its ministers need to believe in God.  Vosper in an interview with the Washington Post said, “We don’t talk about God,” and then added that the church needs to give up “the idolatry of a theistic god.”
The correct term for Gretta Vosper is not atheist, but apostate.  She has, like Bart Ehrman to cite a famous example, abandoned the faith that she previously professed.  It doesn't really matter what Vosper wants to replace God with, according to the Star interview, it is "adopting a more metaphorical interpretation of religious symbols and a greater emphasis on humanist, environmental and social justice causes."  Without God, whatever you put in his place, is meaningless and void.  This shouldn't be controversial in the least, that Vosper has been allowed to continue down this path for years should be shocking.
There is no way, at all, to apply the term "Christian" to what she is doing.  What we believe matters, for our hearts determine our actions, not the other way around, as Jesus said, "out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks" (Luke 6:45)  The heart of the Gospel is that mankind apart from God is lost in sin, we are hopeless on our own, and thus our ONLY hope is in salvation by grace through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus.  These beliefs are not optional, they're essential in every way.
A "Christian", let alone a minister, who does not believe in God, AND more than that, who does not embrace the Gospel, would be a nonsense proposition to John Calvin, Martin Luther, Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, the Apostle Paul, the Apostle Peter, and of course Jesus himself.  For two thousand years the Church has proclaimed the Truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead in victory over sin and death.  To share the Gospel and make disciples of Jesus' followers, is why the Church exists.
Gretta Vosper may think that it is a "sad day" when 19 out of 23 members of a committee vote that an Apostate minister is unfit to lead the Church of Jesus Christ, I happen to see it as a "sad day" that 4 of the 23 voted to allow her to remain.

For additional consideration, Vosper's Church, West Hill, officially ended its use of the Lord's Prayer among other prayers, rewriting them along with classic hymns, for example:

From The Lord’s Prayer...

Then:

Our loving God, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name, Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses …

To Words of Commitment...

Now:

As I live every day, I want to be a channel for peace. May I bring love where there is hatred and healing where there is hurt; joy where there is sadness, and hope where there is fear …

From “How Great Art Thou Art …”

Then sings my soul, my Savior God, to Thee,

How great Thou art! How great Thou art!

Then sings my soul, My Savior God, to Thee,

How great Thou art! How great Thou art!

By Carl G. Boberg

To “Then Sings My Soul …”

Then sings my soul in wonder, full and free,

amazed at all I hear and see!

Then sings my soul in wonder, full and free,

a sacred gift is life to me!

By Gretta Vosper and Scott Kearns (2007)

If God hasn't forgiven you, you're not a Christian, period.

"I have great relationship with God...I like to be good. I don't like to have to ask for forgiveness. And I am good. I don't do a lot of things that are bad. I try to do nothing that is bad...I think if I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don't bring God into that picture. I don't."

The above quote is typical of a post-modern, "I'm good enough for God" attitude, one sadly often acquiesced to in some Christian circles, though they certainly should know better.  What would Paul's response be to such twisted thinking?  A few simple quotes from his letter to the Ephesians ought to illustrate it: "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace (1:7)...As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins (2:1)...Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.  But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions - it is by grace you have been saved. (2:3-5)...For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast. (2:8-9)"

We are not good enough for God on our own, never, ever does the Bible say anything of the sort, the idea is anathema to the Gospel.  We must be forgiven for our sins, period, and this only by the blood of Christ, only through faith, only by grace.  Anything less, and we remain dead in our sins, to pretend otherwise is to leave the sinner separated from God.

The initial quote is from a famous person, somebody who claims to be a Christian, who is accepted as a Christian by many people, but who most certainly is not a Christian if those words reflect his/her heart.  The true follower of Jesus Christ knows that he/she is only a sinner saved by grace, and knows that God's forgiveness means everything.

The Gospel, politics, and the poor.

As the American presidential campaign is now fully underway and will continue to be present in the thoughts of many all the way to November, as Christians, we ought to remind ourselves of the teaching of the Gospel, as outlined by Jesus himself, regarding a topic that comes up rather frequently in political debates and speeches: poverty.  Which solution to poverty will actually help the most is a matter for ongoing debate, not only among politicians but economists as well, but what our attitude, as Christians, toward those living in poverty ought to be, is not.  Our attitude is not optional, we have been commanded, as representatives of the Gospel of grace to treat the poor as Jesus did.  The words of the great commentator, Matthew Henry, written in 1721 when the political and economic landscapes were much different, still hold true today for they concern the Gospel's unchanging truths: "Those ought to be relieved by charity whom the providence of God has any way disabled to get their own bread...though there are cheats among such, yet they must not therefore be all thought such."
Why do so many Christians have a negative attitude toward the poor?  Is it that we give ourselves credit for our own success in warding off poverty, instead of giving God praise, so therefore we give the poor blame for their failure to avoid poverty, instead of seeing the providence of God at work there as well?  If so, our failure is a failure to recognize the authority and power of God.  Is it instead fear that motivates our lack of pity, a fear that recognizes that we ourselves could some day live in poverty if our ability to work were to be compromised, so therefore we blame the poor as a way of whistling past the graveyard and pretending we could never be in their worn-out shoes?  If so, our failure is that we lack trust in the goodness of God.  But perhaps the problem lies deeper, and darker, perhaps the reason that far too many Christians in America are dismissive of the poor, even hostile to the poor, is that we simply are not, as a Church, truly living out the Gospel.  We have instead adopted a Gospel-hybrid, mixing it with the American Dream and the promises of capitalism to replace the Gospel's call for a community that helps those in need with the American fixation upon the individual.  Maybe we, those who make up the Church, just don't like the poor.  Shame upon us to the extent that is true.
Let the politicians say what they will about poverty, we have to get our own house in order, we need to stop blaming the poor for being poor, and start loving them as Christ did, offering them grace and mercy in their time of need, and rejoicing when our effort in his name wins a victory for the kingdom of God.

Sermon Video: "What is impossible with men is possible with God." - Luke 18:18-30

Following two previous illustrations of what it takes to gain entrance into the kingdom of God, the prayers of the Pharisee and tax collector, and then the comment by Jesus that the kingdom of God must be entered like a child, Jesus confronts the question of entrance into the kingdom directly when a rich and powerful man asks him, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"  The man asking the question, though the only things we know of him are that he has both authority and riches, seems to be in a great position to accept whatever answer he is given to his question by Jesus, after all, he has come seeking an answer to his spiritual need, which he recognizes he has, and has sought that answer from Jesus.
And yet, in the end, he will walk away from his encounter with Jesus, abandoning his quest to reconcile with God, over the one negative quality that outweighs all of the positive: his riches.  The tragedy of his refusal to place his spiritual need above his material possessions prompts Jesus to comment about the impossibility of a rich man entering the kingdom of God.  The warning about the danger of riches, while in and of itself is important for those with wealth, and those aspiring to wealth, is also a reminder of the impossibility of anyone, rich or poor, entering the kingdom of God on their own merit.  To obtain eternal life is always a matter of grace, a gift from God, Jesus here reminds us that its harder for a rich man to accept it.

To watch the video, click on the link below: